# Learnability considerations of ".await" syntax

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/learnability-considerations-of-await-syntax/10150>\
**Category:** language design\
**Created:** [May 11, 2019, 11:35am UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/learnability-considerations-of-await-syntax/10150 "2019-05-11T11:35:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tom-Phinney](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/tom-phinney/32/3299_2.png) [@Tom-Phinney](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/Tom-Phinney)\
**Post date:** [May 11, 2019, 1:33pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/learnability-considerations-of-await-syntax/10150/3 "2019-05-11T13:33:09Z")

</div>

> [@stephanbuys](#):
>
> but I for one would happily live with a little extra line noise (as would be the case when a sigil like `@` be introduced to the keyword, `@await` perhaps) if it means protecting Learnability.

That's the primary advantage that I see in [the suggestion to use `¡` as that sigil](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/a-final-proposal-for-await-syntax/10021/185). To ease the typing burden, `.await` could be permitted as an alternate form that `rustfix` would canonicalize as `¡await`. To my eye, `¡` has almost as little visual noise as `.` while being obviously different from all other operators.

`¡` also has potential as a future low-noise pipeline operator, should the lang team need one in the future. I think such a single-character pipeline sigil could be preferable to the harder to learn (IMO) and more parse-ambiguous `|>` double-character pipeline sigil used in other languages. The obvious analogy between `.` for method chaining and `¡` for pipeline chaining makes such a choice attractive to me.

---

_[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/learnability-considerations-of-await-syntax/10150)._